Conversation
|
Thanks for doing this. Any reason you didn't do the table in markdown? Not sure we have much HTML in the repo. Markdown is easier to edit and diff. |
|
This omits a lot of designs - many do not declare a PM or dev owner. |
Uh... I didnt' realize markdown supported tables directly. I am definitely going to fix this.
Yes, that's true. I used git history to find some owners for some proposals and fix them up. I am going to try and fix up others too. I wanted to get this out for general feedback before I take care of all the details. |
19ccc9a to
3f0eff7
Compare
|
I don't really know the formal roles of many people at Microsoft. I tried to guess their roles and I probably got some wrong. From reading the generated table, I think there might be some improvements we want to consider to the design template:
But we don't have that information in a machine readable way yet. https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/0 and https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ might also serve as additional sources for inspiration. |
|
Re roles: in that table, Claire, Sourabh, Immo, Rich, Kathleen are PM's and the others are Devs. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to distinguish them. We are quite fluid with who does what. Many designs only have one or the other. But I don't feel strongly either way. |
I had trouble trying to navigate designs, so maybe an overview will help others find designs too. Some designs are clearly marked with a title and PM/Dev assignments. Some subdesigns, unfortunately, are marked the same way. So we have trouble finding main vs sub-designs.
Okay. I kept them in the original design files (since the design template asks for it), but the index now just shows Owners without distinguishing who does what. |
|
I'm ambivalent on this. On the one hand, I like the single file for Ctrl+F. On the other hand, it seems it's yet another thing that will go out of sync fast. There are two ways we could address that:
|
|
my 2c. it seems easy enough to keep up to date periodically, and no big deal if it goes out of date for a while. and if nobody likes to fix it - we delete it 😄 |
|
|
||
| **PM** [Rich Lander](https://github.com/richlander) | ||
|
|
||
| // FIXME: do these count as PMs/Devs? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PM, Dev, Dev, but I don't think it matters
|
|
||
| **PM** [Rich Lander](https://github.com/richlander) | ||
|
|
||
| // FIXME: do these count as PMs/Devs? |
|
|
||
| **PM** [Rich Lander](https://github.com/richlander) | ||
|
|
||
| // FIXME: do these count as PMs/Devs? |
|
@terrajobst do you feel the distinction between dev and PM in the template is important? not all documents have both, and even if they do, the roles are blurred. I think the template ought to just prompt for a list of stakeholders or owners, whatever their roles. the key requirement is: include all stakeholders and record who they are! |
Sure, let's try and see
No. In fact, let's change the template and call it "owner". I'll fix that. |
|
@omajid do you feel like a follow up change that merges Dev/PM into Owners? If not LMK and I can do it. |
|
I am happy to do it, but it might take a few days. |
|
I'm late to the review @terrajobst Since we recently started adding documents into |
|
We should probably update https://github.com/dotnet/designs#creating-a-proposal to add a step |
This was suggested here: dotnet#190 (comment)
| | 2021 | [Designs](accepted/2021/statics-in-interfaces/designs/README.md) | [Immo Landwerth](https://github.com/terrajobst) | | ||
| | 2021 | [Requirements](accepted/2021/statics-in-interfaces/requirements/README.md) | [Immo Landwerth](https://github.com/terrajobst) | | ||
| | 2021 | [Scenarios](accepted/2021/statics-in-interfaces/scenarios/README.md) | [Immo Landwerth](https://github.com/terrajobst) | | ||
| | 2021 | [Statics in Interfaces](accepted/2021/statics-in-interfaces/README.md) | [Immo Landwerth](https://github.com/terrajobst) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Static in interfaces are split over multiple documents. It is not clear by looking at the index that all these 4 documents are for static in interfaces.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for catching this! Do you think it makes more sense to have a single entry for "Statics In Interfaces" or should we list the individual sub-designs with a prefix like "Statics In Interfaces": "Statics In Interfaces: Requirements", "Statics In Interfaces: Scenarios" and "Statics In Interfaces: Designs"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recommend just a single entry for these design that are being spread over multiple documents--just pointing to the top-level README for them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would make sense to have just a single entry for Statics in Interfaces. The top level Statics in Interfaces doc can have links to the other ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would opt for a process that can be easily generated with @omajid's update script. Leaving designs out is probably harder than, say, a prefix notation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script uses a heuristic to separate main designs from subdesigns: If the document lists a PM/Dev (soon Owner), then the document is treated as a main (or top-level) design.
For Statics In Interfaces, it sounds like the main design is accepted/2021/statics-in-interfaces/README.md and the rest are the components. If we removed PM/Dev from those documents, the scripts will just ignore them.
(I also think it makes sense to do anyway: there aren't separate Owners for the Design vs Requirements vs Scenarios, are there?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, I can fix the script to ignore a certain level of nesting as sub-designs and only look for top-level documents.
I had trouble trying to navigate designs, so maybe an overview will help others find designs too.
Some designs are clearly marked with a title and PM/Dev assignments. Some subdesigns, unfortunately, are marked the same way. So we have trouble finding main vs sub-designs.
You can see a fully rendered version here.